California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›3 »

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

\
And yes, it is broadly similar to the practice of medicine and how it's regulated: prospective engineers must acquire an accredited engineering degree, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam to get a license to practice as an intern, complete a multi-year internship under fully licensed professional engineers (typically 4 years - California is 6), then finally pass the Professional Engineering exam (pass rate ~50% just like the Bar) in order to use the title.

Not really. It's 6 years but 4 are waived if you got your degree from an accredited institution, which is basically a given for most engineers, so the "internship" is only two years. Most people take the FE during college.

quote:

And in order to maintain the title you must complete Continuing Education requirements; this is typically 20 hours/year and also requires that you remain "of good character" meaning no felony convictions or things like DUIs or else your state board takes your license. Medical licenses are regulated in exactly the same way.

I think this is completely untrue as the only evidence that PELS seems to give a poo poo about is the renewal fee I send in every couple years. A felony could be used to strip a license but I don't think it automatically does.

quote:

All of this is because the practice of engineering fundamentally impacts public safety - when engineers screw up, people die and engineers go to jail. It's a very big deal and while the younger engineers might laugh at these programmers calling themselves astronaut firemen or whatever, the older engineers who've actually been in court to defend their work tend to lose their goddamn mind about title misuse.

I guess, but I've never encountered title misuse, largely because that would require an invalid stamp. And unless the law changed everything not a civil/mechanical/electrical isn't even a license, it's just a title. I'm not even sure what my stamp does besides leave ink on things.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 04:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 07:14

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Leperflesh posted:

I'm guessing golf courses get to qualify as "green space" and not residential development and therefore pay the same as farmers for water (which is to say, it's cheap as gently caress).

Some (dunno the percent) golf courses use recycled water. A decade ago wastewater plants that wanted to produce recycled water sometimes would tie upgrades to golf course construction because they would buy the water which the plant needed to get rid of. This will shift in the future as recycled water sees more use in other areas.

quote:

The article is kind of light on data so I can't tell if this is a serious issue or if the drought is just being used as an excuse to crack down on growers. Diverting streams is obviously bad, but how common is that?

It's real and they also heavily pollute their areas since they are currently completely unregulated, although that's about to change as regulators are apparently going to go out with LE, although I'm not sure what the idea is. I think the plan is to punish landowners that allow polluting pot farms on their property through discharge regulations. The impact they have is obviously very regional.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2014 05:58

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

GhostofJohnMuir posted:

I know a significant portion of Orange County is toilet to tap, but I haven't heard of any other extensive operations outside of that. Most other counties have recycled water, but not for human consumption.

What do you think toilet to tap is?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2015 07:49

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

Can't be worse than the rest of the valley below or above it, or most of inland SoCal.

It's definitely worse than inland socal, at least when I lived there. LA got hot but Sac was holy poo poo never turn off the AC bad.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 21:03

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

nm posted:

La is not inland socal. The IE is. The climate is vitually the same, except sacramento has wetter winters and has more water due to the sierras.

Unless you mean palm desert I meant as far as Fontana. And while it would get gross and hot there, plus you were in Fontana, I never experienced the feeling that my skin was cooking when I left the shade like I did in Sacramento.

And downtown Sacramento certainly didn't cool off at night, I'd leave the gym at 10 pm in July or August and it would still be uncomfortable.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 23:30

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Leperflesh posted:

I understand that reasoning, but that would imply that out-of-state people could be charged more for anything that state taxes helps to fund: including roads, agriculture, public transportation, even access to private businesses (since the taxpayers have to support the costs of regulating those businesses).

What you posted says that higher fishing fees for out of state was upheld. Since out of state students aren't having access penalized (sorta) that would seem to be the defining difference from the items struck down.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2015 00:05

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

TildeATH posted:

Alright, so we don't cut off water to anyone who ever lived in New York, but we can charge them 10x as much? I'm cool with that.

Maybe? Water rates may be governed separately to make that difficult, though. For the examples provided they seem to also revolve around things that a resident benefits from uniquely as a resident, while college and fishing wouldn't necessarily be.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2015 00:54

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Leperflesh posted:

Without going into details, I have personal contacts who are close to Newsom's family (mostly his father, a retired judge). He's well-connected to extreme wealth, he's incredibly carefully groomed, he's carefully Democratic, and he has taken some very, very calculated risks that have paid off very well. I don't think he's a replicant. I think he's a archetypical politician. He's very effective as an executive. All of his opinions and positions and speeches are meticulously vetted and calculated. He is especially good at schmoozing with the deep-pocketed donor class that drive all effective political campaigns.

I think there's an excellent chance he'll serve two terms as CA governor, and a significant (but still small) chance he'll eventually serve as vice president. I don't think he can win a presidential campaign, but only because he's from San Francisco, and huge swathes of the country reflexively hate politicians from San Francisco, just on the basis that obviously they are way too liberal. Maybe by the time Newsom would be running (I'd guess 2024 at the earliest) that will change, but I dunno.

I just don't see Newsom surviving the absolute mind-blowing slam ads regarding his affair that will appear when he runs for major office like governor. SF groups may have given him the kid-gloves but "mayor fucks wife of chief-of-staff, causes divorce" plays well on TV and from glancing over the news articles back then the ethics issues seemed to enter a poorly resolved grey zone which will chum the waters. He may be safe in CA where the Rs can't seem to field anyone who isn't a Lovecraftian ur-horror but I don't think he can go national.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2015 08:16

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

Lmao at BART being built through any part of Marin County just lmao.

Once the SMART train is built all we need to do is wait for the earthquake to damage it just enough to kill SMART and be absorbed by BART.

quote:

Marin was part of the original BART consortium, but after San Mateo County withdrew, Marin felt they didn't have the tax base to continue. http://www.bart.gov/about/history

That was over 50 years ago, NIMBY/anti-growth is much more powerful. That said I don't know how SMART got through, but since it stops near the Larkspur Ferry it's not like it's going to see high density like BART would.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2015 19:11

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Rah! posted:

That's too bad, but Marin has only 250,000 people anyways, so it's not a big deal all things considered. They shouldn't have opted out of BART in the 1960s, if they really wanted it. And for the record, they just finished the SMART light rail/commuter system, which connects with the ferry to SF...which is definitely an improvement over what they had (didn't have) before.

SMART isn't done yet, it's a train (not really light rail), it serves more than Marin which is the big issue (Sonoma has about a half mil), it is planned to go to the ferry but it's unclear when that stage will occur, and the ferry itself is still a 30+ minute ride not counting boarding, disembark, etc and the $10 ferry ticket each way to go with it (SMART ticket prices are still unknown). And then you're still at the ferry building which isn't likely the destination for anyone. BART or something that connects directly to BART is what's needed.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2015 01:45

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

FRINGE posted:

The wiki reference is to a manual of chemistry I will never lay my hands on, but EWG had some references:

http://www.ewg.org/research/water-treatment-contaminants

Im going to stop, because reading about public water in this no-longer first-world country depresses me.

Where does that say that the EPA want's to prohibit chloramine use?

Why did you stop quoting the article when the next paragraph is about the law changing (where the article also makes a false statement unless I'm really misreading the EPA website)?

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 07:07

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

FRINGE posted:

Do what you want. The EPAs own pdfs have all the same warnings just spun the opposite direction. Their small section on "disadvantages" highlights that their long list of "why we thinks its fine" are all bounded by not knowing much.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/chloramines_index.cfm#three

I am doing what I want: asking you why you quoted something apparently untrue and won't admit to, and why you selectively quoted another article in a way that leads to false conclusions.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2015 16:25

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

CopperHound posted:

I guess a figurative poo poo hole is worth more than a literal poo poo hole?

E: As somebody who has only visited San Jose, does it have any redeaming qualities other than tech jobs? If it weren't for the lack of reliable non-state jobs I'd say Sacramento is more pleasant in every other aspect for (less than?) half the price.

The sj downtown seems very nice on the few times I've been there and you're relatively close to places like SF, Santa cruz, and Monterey. Plus while the weather can get hot I don't think it gets as mind blowing as Sacramento, which only has Tahoe as an escape (which is nice but takes a while to get to)

Sacramento has a now-decent downtown (a decade ago it was poo poo) but that's about it. Also they say "hella".

That said if you are a young person you should really think about moving to Sacramento for a state job (unless you can get one elsewhere) . They are very stable, decent paying for good chunks of the state, excellent health, and have a pension for new hires at 2% at 60 (I think). For the average d&d radical marxist there are a good number of jobs that actually benefit your fellow man so you can go home at night thinking you did something useful.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2015 18:10

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

I listed some ways they got value, but that was dismissed because there were theoretical better ways to get those objectives.

But even if the goal was just to get BLM back in the Bay Area news conversations, I can't think of a more effective thing 50 people could have done.

They could have shut down the golden gate bridge, which is more symbolic, has huge tourist traffic on holidays, is a psychotic choke point, etc. I suspect that, rather than the bay bridge, would still be talked about today instead of barely being mentioned on Bay area news sites front pages.

Considering the size of the plazas they could have shut down the gg and Richmond bridges with the same number of people, with increased symbolism on the Marin side thanks to San Quentin plus bonus increased targeting of the super wealthy in Marin.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 01:28

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm not sure it would have been as easy to shut down the GG, the NPS is involved, etc. I'm having trouble finding a time when people have protested and shut down the golden gate. Maybe that's the next goal

Also I think it is fair that people should be allowed to protest in their own communities.

Both sides of the gg have choke points, one with convenient parking and tour buses doing half your work, the other easily accessible from below and with a toll plaza leading to a nightmare merge. And I don't know what you think the NPS would do, they aren't cops.

And Richmond is much more their community than Emeryville, to say nothing of the value of impacting people with influence and wealth in Marin.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2016 01:51

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Cicero posted:

A prop 13 repeal that kept it on the books for someone's primary residence if they'd been living there for several years and can prove hardship would be fine. Unfortunately there's no way we're gonna get that.

Swap the hardship for retirement age and you'd probably get it to pass if you also spread out the change over multiple years. Granny gets protected, severe shocks get dampened.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2016 08:59

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

FilthyImp posted:

For what it's worth, a high rise complex was built around the location of The Old Spaghetti Factory building around there. There's supposed to be a few scary fault lines in the area that would make big, dense buildings a bad idea.

If the buildings fall over they may crush Spaghetti Factory, though.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 20:08

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

withak posted:

It's fun game to figure out which candidates might be the serious ones based only on the voter's guide.

I've almost never been let down by MORE CAPS = CRAZIER THAN.

# ¿ May 1, 2016 19:46

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Kenning posted:

I understand the concern about messaging, but I always have to remind people that people were satirizing and declaiming Hitler's Nazis in the press right up until the bunker. There were peaceful anti-Nazi protests before they consolidated power. The thing that stopped the original Nazis was the Red Army and nothing else. Antifa aren't the Red Army, but it illustrates the point that sharp confrontation to push Nazis back into the shadows is crucial. The problem with the messaging wasn't what the antifa did -- break up a Nazis rally with some people employing violence -- it was their retreat from media tactics following the event.

Also, it's not clear who threw the first punch, but a black man was stabbed right right at the beginning of the confrontation. These were the Golden State Skins as well as the TWP. I don't think they really held back at all.

Could you list out tactics that the Red Army used to defeat the Nazis and which ones are necessary to stop modern Nazis? I mean, it wasn't something simple like "respond to violence with violence", right? It was specific actions, losses, and follow-up.

Alternatively, again, maybe consider how staggeringly bad a job your group did when they kinda-sorta lost a PR fight to actual Nazis, you know, a group that for the last 25-ish years has been the global go-to for "humans it's ok to violently gun down" in first person shooters and the "hmm maybe I want to win an Academy Award this year by showing how awful they were" subject for film. It's not just "media tactics" that failed, you have to actively gently caress up at every level to get a "hmm maybe both sides are bad" outcome when one side is Nazis.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2016 20:34

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

While I troll Palo Alto Online for comments mentioning EPA, enjoy this nugget:

Can't afford to live in Atherton? Just live in Palo Alto or Menlo Park instead!

Edit: and here's someone mad there weren't enough arrests over fireworks

Edit2: but when we do it, it is safe lol

Why are you quoting a newspaper comment section like it has any resemblance to reality? Are we supposed to take that as a serious reflection of local politics?

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 21:36

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

atomicthumbs posted:

my mom did ok on 45k and (later) 75k in marin county raising me and my brother and paying her mortgage, but that was before the tech bubs

Yeah the median home price in Marin is $1M. North Bay housing and rent, particularly in Marin, has been out of control for at least a decade. 75k means you aren't owning a house and can barely afford a 2 bedroom apartment, and that's using 2012 numbers when rent wasn't crazy like it is now.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 21:43

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Trabisnikof posted:

It certainly is a reflection of a certain part of local politics.

So are chemtrail theorists but I don't post their comments as evidence of rampant widespread mental illness.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 22:50

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Forum is total dogshit and I die inside every time I have to drive to Sacramento because I'm usually driving after morning rush hour which means news is ending (is there something bad about California Report) and Forum is beginning. I would rather listen to right wing AM radio in some weird reverberating southeast Asian language that sounds like a numbers station merged with a cult broadcast than have to listen to total loving dimwits obliterate what little faith I have in the electorate.

Driving home usually entails hearing the outro theme to Newshour and then being punished with the money show whatever it's called. Then because I'm crossing multiple mountain barriers/regions I lose all track of whatever animal-named station is playing classic rock (which now seems on the cusp of including Kid Rock and Korn as old enough to be classic) and I turn off the radio and drive in mute silence.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 00:12

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

You sound real mad and you must be talking about 96.9 THE EAGLE

I don't like driving to Sacramento and THE EAGLE is one of the stations, I could swear there's another one but the radio in the car doesn't scan and the presets don't work because the car touchscreen is from 2001.

quote:

The host of forum asks good questions and the show addresses most important Bay Area issues. The idiot callers are a feature.

"We'll let that comment stand and move to the next caller"

I think Krasny asks mediocre to poor softball questions that, even on topics I know almost nothing about, come across as too basic. Like "hey so you're a mathematician working on black hole theory, can you tell me how much I should tip on delivery pizza? Now let's get some questions from email, Gargamel from Larkspur asks how do I catch these smurfs?"

Two hours later you've learned nothing except that you could have been ruminating on the nature of the universe or planning out the rest of your day to make sure you get to Sonic for happy hour. God forbid you get a topic like vaccinations where an anti-vaxxer will get uninterrupted air time for a minute or two and the pushback is super weak (this assumes that they haven't booked an epidemiologist and a naturopath to both be guests).

If the show was only an hour it wouldn't be so bad.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2016 04:33

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

If people alter their behavior based on perception of a law, and if that perception can be anticipated, then harm (which is a vague term) is assumed to occur prior to passage even if minor and dismissable. It may not be a lot of harm or it may be worth doing anyway but negative indirect impacts are expected from pretty much any government activity, even if it's "g-man was doing a thing, now has to also do other things, slightly neglecting first thing".

You're also assuming laws are smartly written which is a whole separate issue, including what would be considered "smartly", because there's a lot of space between someone passing a law and the people implementing and interpreting that law, sometimes having to mesh other competing laws together.

Like, I can anticipate all sorts of entities that could be harmed as a result of banning the death penalty or adding a critter to the endangered list. Even your exemptions could result in harm to the group exempted.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2016 20:50

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Leperflesh posted:

OK, first I want to be clear, I brought up hunting of endangered species, not all hunting in general.

But yeah, banning all recreational hunting does not "harm" hunters, using the narrow definition I just presented. It certainly would be a restriction of their previously well protected rights, and it might actually harm ecologies. But no, "you can't go kill animals any more" doesn't make someone get sick, or keep them from recovering from an illness. It might affect some hunters' livelihoods, if they have a hunting-based profession. And that'd be something close to harm - financial harm, anyway. And I don't think you should wreck people's livelihoods without a good reason, but there are cases where you have to: coal miners are not going to get to keep mining coal, if we want to save our civilization.

Financial harm is usually treated as actual real harm that's important to consider so pretending it's in a different category from other harm doesn't do your arguments favors, particularly if you go as far as job loss. Further, for the endangered species argument, there may be other "real" harm caused; as you mentioned there could be ecological damage, but there could even be harm to groups allowed to still hunt because it can entrench behaviors that might not actually be good for the group. Your death penalty example would likely result in job loss and creation in the short term, tangible emotional distress to those who specifically wanted someone killed, and when San Quentin cracks in half after the next big earthquake and all those spared death row inmates are now holding the San Rafael Bridge hostage unless they get 5 live babies and a sports car then who's going to pay for that Tesla?

quote:

Can we remember the premise, here? The idea that all legislation has to hurt someone. Not just inconvenience, or challenge, or offend, but actually harm people. Not just some kinds of legislation, but all. And therefore, it would be OK to pass a law that you believed would harm VA hospital patients (by raising the cost of their prescription meds or in some cases making some meds entirely unavailable to them) because someone is always harmed, and therefore, go ahead and harm someone intentionally if it helps you advance some other priority that you have.

Accepting that every law is likely to cause harm doesn't mean go hog wild throwing people to the wolves because death is certain, it means accepting the consequences of laws and working to minimize and identifying harm while mitigating as necessary. Taking an absolutist view regarding harm is how laws get stopped, because when you start arguing for a law on the premise that no one will get hurt, and opponents find ways to show harm occurs, your position is undermined and you start to lose drive. In the case of medication, regardless of how the law plays out some veterans will probably lose - it's just far more honest and palatable to the people passing laws and public to argue, for example, that 100,000 CA residents will get improved access to meds and the beancounters have estimated 5 veterans will be worse off.

# ¿ Oct 28, 2016 02:40

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Roland Jones posted:

Oh, I agree here, for sure. I love the idea here, I just wasn't sure how it'd work out in practice. Not sure if there's something I'm missing that'd make it a bad idea in practice or something. If there isn't, then the law has my full support.

I'm not arguing that the following would tip the scales but there are annual conferences that move around the nation for my field, and we have managed to send people them for the training aspects in spite of our of state travel already being like pulling teeth. I'm not certain how common this is with other fields as it's pretty uncommon in mine.

I can think of other scenarios where this would be a baby with the bathwater issue (emergency aid) but I'm not certain how often that would come up given the distance. If Nevada or Arizona were on the list I would be a lot more hesitant as we'd be risking retaliatory behavior in likely emergency conditions like a major earthquake.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 16:08

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

FreshlyShaven posted:

The law specifically makes exceptions for emergencies:

California isn't going to refuse to send firefighters or other emergency crews to North Carolina during an emergency because of their transphobic laws. On the other hand, it puts pressure on states like NC and MS to cut this poo poo out and to stop persecuting their LGBT residents.

Edit: realized MI was Michigan, not Mississippi.

That may not say what you think. It doesn't specify who's public health has to be protected and the use of "affected" could be meant to mean that, say, calfire can go to TN to get a bulldozer to deal with a CA earthquake. A flood in KY doesn't necessarily have an effect on the Division of Dams.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 17:38

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Hawkgirl posted:

The spirit of the law is obviously "don't be a shithead when people are suffering." It's vague on purpose to allow the government to use discretion. There is always the chance that we elect assholes, but then it's on us to not elect assholes.

"Affected" is specific and without watching or reading legislative discussion I would say the intro text of the bill does not indicate that the spirit is to make exceptions. If they intended to keep it vague then "relevant" would have been a better term.

I'm on a tablet so it is a giant pain to determine if previous versions of the bill used different language from which to determine intent, as sometimes you can glean what they want from how first drafts are curiously worded.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 18:34

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Leperflesh posted:

No, that isn't bullshit. Putting a minority of your employees into a position where they are singled out - such as because they have to tell their boss "no, I don't want to go to that thing in North Carolina, but don't ask me why, but you can't make me, but you obviously know why, even though neither of us will put that reason on paper" - is discriminatory.

And yes, I have no doubt at all that the legislators who passed this bill also want to score political points. Nevertheless, your argument was that CA has no interest, and this is a direct interest: protecting its own employees. It makes the bill defensible from a legal standpoint, at the very least. And if the effect of protecting its own employees from discrimination is secondary, well: I'll take it anyway.

This argument is contrary to the argument that getting around the bill is trivial due to subsection c. IMO I think subsection c is not trivial and you don't understand how difficult getting an exception can be, even with that wording (and think about where most HQs are for state agencies), but it will be protective. I just think the exemption clause for emergency services is poorly worded or poorly thought out if we assume that states that currently or eventually get caught by this law will be shitheads and retaliate by not sending CA aid following a disaster.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 06:48

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Panfilo posted:

Apparently Mountain View and Palo Alto are trying to ban growing marijuana outdoors in case marijuana gets legalized. Is this some kind of NIMBY thing? Not very eco friendly to force people to use grow lamps and stuff when the sun is free.

Possibly nimby but if a city assumes that mega agrocon is going to develop some massive pot farms then driving up local costs basically means getting grow operations out of town.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 06:51

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

I also never got the impression (although I could be wrong, memory failing) that he really cleared up the whole scandal regarding him sleeping with his campaign manager's wife. "hosed best friend's wife, caused a divorce" is something that'll probably be run non-stop in ads.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 22:57

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Duckbag posted:

Yeah, I lived up in redwood land for a while and saw the State of Jefferson stickers now and then, but I never got a single satisfactory answer for how the gently caress a state like that would function. The population is tiny, the economy is awful (unless like you like trimming weed two months a year), and the whole region's infrastructure is massively subsidized by outside tax revenue. How they could possibly lower taxes and still have paved roads and airports and ambulances and rural fire departments and the rest is beyond me, and (apparently) everyone else I've ever asked about it. Plus, what would be the capital? loving Redding is the biggest town up there, but according to the purists that's still too far south. I really don't think that anyone is going to go for a state with Yreka as the capital, probably including the Yrekans.

The explanation I heard years ago as part of the basis for Jefferson was that being its own state would mean that region can get federal funds for roads and stuff, the thinking being that federal funds to CA/OR are currently spent in more heavily populated areas instead of rural nowhere land. They could lower taxes because state taxes at any rate would likely be insignificant in comparison to federal funding, so what's the difference.

quote:

separate california based on whose teenagers say "hecka" versus "hella"

So create 3 states? SoCal, NorCal, and Sacramento?

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 20:40

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Isn't "freeway" pretty much obsolete? I only ever hear "highway" or "Interstate", but maybe that's because NoCal.

Highway is good for little roads, like highway 39 to the 101 aka the freeway.

Why would anyone casually say the word "interstate"? I ain't got time for that many syllables.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 20:25

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

CopperHound posted:

Then why not drop "the"?

I'm not a loving caveman. Me get on freeway? Might as well live in

*checks CA map*

Palmdale!

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 21:20

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Duckbox posted:

If I were running the state, I'd focus on investing in and building up mid-sized peripheral cities like El Centro, Oxnard, Fresno, Paso Robles, Salinas, Chico, Santa Rosa, Eureka, etc., so that we had more than just three urban cores (four counting Sac) to work from and more Californians could actually live in their own place instead of a suburb of somewhere else. People like me don't usually get elected though and a lot of the politicians in those smaller cities actually enjoy their big fish-small pond parochial status.

Fresno has a higher population than Sacramento, although I'm not sure if the very-quick google numbers I saw represent the Sacramento metro region (like Rancho Cordova) or just the city. No one wants to be there, though, because it's boiling hot and aside from produce it's not really close enough to fun stuff other than Yosemite (and that's still ~2-3 hours). It's not a total shithole from the little I've seen - it has "stuff"- but I've heard "at least I don't live in Bakersfield" a few too many times from people living there. The big issue with central valley or deep IE or Redding etc is that the weather gets really bad. Really, really bad. And that means certain times of the years some things just don't get to happen outside, and there really isn't anything to counter-balance that. Like, Tahoe gets freezing cold and snow, but snow can actually be fun. I don't know how 115F and ag stench becomes fun.

Eureka is really out of the way and can be hard to access. They could hold more people but the ~3 hours drive from Santa Rosa (which means 4+ from SF) on winding mountain-ish roads is going to hold them back unless teleportation is invented.

Santa Rosa kinda does fall into what you're talking about but from people "in the know" the older group that wanted to put the city under glass has retired/died and the city is more aggressively trying to figure out how to solve their housing crisis. The bigger issue for SR is that about 20 years ago they were a much more "edge" town than the weird rural/wine-beer-tourism/county seat nexus they are now, and simply weren't prepared to manage the necessary growth. Someone who's lived in SR since the 90s and has 20 years of time in planning or whatever is just not likely to understand that their city has gained ~40,000 residents, and that seemingly good (or passable) development laws in 1997 are dire for 2017. They also probably look at the nearest towns like Sonoma (~11k), Rohnert Park (42k), Petaluma (60k), and Sebastopol (7k) and think "we're just a bigger version of that", instead of realizing that the population is more like all of those put together and times 1.7.

Zachack fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 22, 2017

# ¿ Oct 22, 2017 06:48

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

HelloSailorSign posted:

For the jobs that are able, would the state government encouraging telecommuting be of benefit?

Or does it already and I don�t know about it?

And not just encouraging employees to work from home, but to have some distance from the central office (100 miles?), yet still reside within the state.

...maybe that�s just a terrible idea.

Telecommuting is allowed but a lot of non-Sacramento state jobs tend to revolve around geographic regions. IT tends to be a crapshoot, too, so certain telework concepts, uhhh, may not work or be disabled. And Sacramento isn't outrageously expensive so in my very limited experience there tends to be a gravity well effect where the very higher ups (who kinda have to be in Sacramento) want their underlings to be in Sacramento and aren't thrilled with telecommuting. Also in my limited experience a lot of the types of jobs that lend themselves to telecommuting are ones where you get called into meetings a lot and that iffy IT support can really gently caress with that.

# ¿ Oct 22, 2017 06:59

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

The Wiggly Wizard posted:

Ok so they’re taking all of the good beer too.

I've seen a slightly different version that puts Sonoma in Old California. And Santa Clara.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2018 20:08

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Ron Jeremy posted:

Scratching my head at including Santa Clara county into new california...

I'm pretty sure that map is wrong because the official website linked to a map on AGENDA 21 FUTURAMA DOT BIZ or something and that map has Sonoma and Santa Clara in Commiefornia.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2018 22:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 07:14

Zachack: Jun 1, 2000

Sundae posted:

In a sick sort of way, this makes sense. If you're going to spend $2.5M on a quarter-acre plot, you might as well add another half million and plop your perfect dream house on it. (Or you could just sit on the money and retire to a beach house in Belize twenty years early for the same cost, but hey, who's counting?)

Zillow says my mom's house in socal is 1.75M and it's probably worth more (jesus christ), but before she retires and moves to Carson City she has talked about putting 25k into redoing the kitchen or bathroom or something to "raise the value" and I keep telling her that at the required amount of money a theoretical buyer will command makes those improvements pointless because they don't want her ideas of improvements, and when you're forking out 2M what's an extra 0.1M at that point to have it the way you want?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2018 18:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›3 »